Oxford has one of the highest per capita levels of homelessness of any city in the country. There is both intense misconception about the causes and scale of the problem, and confusion as to how to attempt reduce it.

While most people have moved away from the view that the homeless are homeless entirely due to personal fault or weakness, the issue remains a deeply misunderstood one. This is just as true with respect to the perceptions of Oxford students as of any others across the country. Consider, briefly, what would be the first reasons you would offer if someone asked why it is that the homeless you see have come to be so. Would you point to relationship breakdown? Or leaving prison with nowhere to go? Or perhaps being forced out of the family home?

In a survey of over 1000 University students, it was found that the most widely perceived cause of homelessness was believed to be addiction. The other possible causes respondents could choose ranged from relationship breakdown, to leaving prison, to mental health problems, or being forced out of the family home. All were highlighted by fewer people as a significant cause of homelessness. Indeed, only nine per cent gave family breakdown as a primary cause, while only two per cent selected leaving prison.

These beliefs are as dangerous as they are lacking a basis in reality. In a study of people who either are or have been homeless, run by Shelter, the single most common cause was found to be relationship breakdown, with this being given as a primary cause by 41 per cent of respondents. Meanwhile, 25% responded that being released from prison and having no other option was a primary cause behind their situation. The disparity between perceptions and reality here serves to underline why homelessness is so low on policy agendas. As the tendency to focus on addiction shows, too often we take the view that these are people who have brought around their own predicament and are failing to escape due to lack of effort.

I have seen this attitude repeatedly in my time here, as otherwise extremely caring people express the opinion that the homeless generally could, if they just tried a bit harder, pull themselves out of their situation.

Another problem is the lack of comprehension of the scale of the problem; in the survey 73 per cent of respondents thought that at least half of all homeless people were actually sleeping rough. In actual fact, for every rough sleeper you see, there will be 100 more in hostels. In 2013, over 112,000 declared themselves homeless. On top of this, the ‘hidden homeless’, consisting of a far larger group who have found temporary accommodation in insecure housing, push the demographic into the many hundreds of thousands.

The problem is clearly one that needs solving. This in itself is a complex issue, as seen in the Council’s ‘Your Kindness Could Kill’ campaign. Intended to convey how it is usually more effective to give money to charities that could better pool superior resources, some inferred from this slogan the implication that money given directly to the homeless will necessarily be used to buy alcohol and drugs.

However, despite these difficulties, there are a number of things which can be done. If you see someone sleeping rough, call ‘No Second Night Out’ on 0300 500 0914. They are a group committed to trying to ensure than no one sleeps rough more than once more after they have been altered. Alternatively, if you want to give money in some way but are worried about how it will be used, put money in the homeless medical fund collection boxes in your college receptions.

Homelessness is a far larger problem than is usually thought; it needs to be acted against, and unless it is accepted that it is not just the responsibility of the homeless person but also the rest of society to help get them out of their situation, many will end up stuck in a cycle which can so easily be avoided

Yes

Louisa Manning

I am a feminist. Last year, I joined the Cuntry Living Facebook group, which describes itself as “an Oxford-based feminist zine”. However, having been on the group for some time, I have come to think Cuntry Living is bad for feminism.

I want to point out that I do not think it fails in every respect. For many people from marginalised groups, it does provide a space in which they can express their feelings about the oppression which they have suffered and discuss what it is that can be done to bring about change.

However, and particularly recently, those within the Cuntry Living journalistic movement have increasingly marginalised and attacked those not adhering to their particular view on feminism. As a direct result of this, the group has become a militant, aggressive space which actively harms women’s voices and effectively shuts down feminist discussion.

In a modern world where feminism embraces and emphasises plurality, the trigger- happy attitude the admins hold towards banning members is counter-productive.This was clearly highlighted when one member was banned simply for suggesting that a political cartoon failing to depict the three female party leaders could have done so for reasons other than sexism. Similarly, women who identify as feminists but disagree with issues such as sex-work have been instantly silenced by admins and received warnings for expressing their views.

Underlying this is an incredible degree of judgement on behalf of the admins about who is a ‘real’ feminist. If further evidence of this is needed, some have recently admitted to Facebook-stalking members’ profiles to assert whether or not they are “legit feminists”.

This unnecessarily aggressive approach to the moderation and control of the views expressed on the group means many members fear posting. This goes against the fundamental principles of what such a group should be about, as, rather than silencing and suppressing important conversations, it ought to be promoting feminist debate and allowing all those with a heartfelt opinion to be heard out.

Another problem with Cuntry Living in its present form is whether it can truly claim (as it does) to be an intersectional space. The issue is that with the number of groups represented in its 8,500 member base, there will naturally be domination of some over others.

Mixed-race erasure, for example, is common: being half Latino, whenever I’ve become involved with threads discussing race, I’ve been accused of ‘passing privilege’ and have been instructed to identify as white when talking to people of colour. Needless to say this makes commenting uncomfortable and daunting.

Thus, Cuntry Living essentially creates an attitude of mixed-race erasure and in doing so it completely fails in its aim to be an intersectional space, and in fact furthers the marginalisation of some of the groups it claims to represent.

On top of this, the patronising, self-righteous tone admins take when issuing warnings promotes a classism and elitism: Cuntry Living’s admins fail to recognise that with the group’s expansion to involve new groups, many of the members now involved have not benefitted from their educational privileges. In order to succeed as an intersectional feminist space, the group needs to be as accessible as possible – something which it is currently not.

Emma Watson’s HeForShe speech last September emphasised the need for feminism not only to involve and mobilise women, but also any possible allies of the movement. Watson did a good job of presenting feminism as it should be; not as a man-hating philosophy, but as one where everyone should take equal involvement in striving for gender equality.

Cuntry Living, on the other hand, superficially welcomes men but deeper down takes a strong ally-exclusionary attitude. Views are dismissed purely on the basis of someone appearing white, heterosexual and male.

A recent case of this includes a recent post where a non-binary person posted a criticism of Cuntry Living and was instantly shouted down for being ‘male’ and ‘invading a feminist space’. Doing this – judging members on the basis of their profile picture and silencing potential allies’ opinions – directly harms feminism’s progress as it further conforms to damaging stereotypes and risks allowing this version of feminism to become popularised.

Considering possible routes forward, it seems that some of Cuntry Living’s problems would be reduced through a resolution of its identity crisis: it claims to be a safe space but equally says “healthy debate is welcomed”. It can’t be both – it can’t provide both a space where people can rant unquestioned and at the same time be one where open debate is welcomed. Its expansion makes this problem even more pronounced.

Though Cuntry Living’s original aims may have been positive, it’s no longer either a safe space nor an educational one – it’s become a group dominated by a single mentality which alienates anyone not adhering to a particular strand of feminism.

No

Niamh McIntyre

Cuntry Living has a special place in my heart. I came to Oxford as a nervous, unconfident 18-year-old with a hell of a lot of internalised misogyny, a tentative feminist who probably wouldn’t have loudly identified as such in front of the boys at sixth-form college. Joining Cuntry Living was a hugely important moment in my feminist awakening; it was through Cuntry Living, as much as the people I met in real life at university, that I encountered loud, proud, outspoken, unapologetic feminists. I would obsessively follow threads populated by people much more knowledgeable than I was, until I became confident and well-read enough to participate in this new community I so admired.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%11682%%[/mm-hide-text]

To question whether Cuntry Living is a force for good, however, I should maybe take off these rose-tinted spectacles. I’m now approaching the end of my second year, and the Cuntry Living I joined is very distinct from the group today. Because, somewhere along the line, without anyone understanding why or how, Cuntry Living has become a hugely important Oxford institution. Not only that, but it’s expanded far beyond the Oxford student community, or even the student community. It’s a space that no one can quite control or define. It’s not a completely safe space, despite the best efforts of its admins, but it’s not an educational space, open to everyone, either. It’s not only the objectives and ethos of the group which are constantly shifting and expanding: at the time of writing, Cuntry Living has 8,495 members, with new members joining from all corners of the internet every day. Every time a new banning scandal comes along, we re-ignite the questions around the limits of the space.

For me, there is at least one essential characteristic of Cuntry Living: it’s a space to rant about the patriarchy, a space for solidarity, rage, and organising. This is a core value worth fighting for – but also one that is increasingly difficult to defend in a group so huge. Whether it achievesit or not, Cuntry Living aims to be a space where oppressed people who are silenced and shouted down in real life or in other online spaces, should be able to speak without fear.

Enforcing this principle in a group with thousands of members, many of whom are unfamiliar with the etiquette of safe spaces or online activism, is a thankless task. Currently, many members would consider the safe spaces policy a waste of time, an example of the ‘censorious’ tendency of social justice; but for others, they are both radical and vital and I completely believe that Cuntry Living should strive to be as safe as possible.

I won’t defend every decision an admin has ever made to ban someone on Cuntry Living. I haven’t followed every case; I’m sure that mistakes have been made, and people unfairly removed. But for me, creating a community for marginalised voices is more important than the odd person wrongly slipping through the net.

This brings us to the tedious and ever-present questions of “debate” and “free speech”. Of course, healthy and respectful debate on Cuntry Living is the lifeblood of the group. Despite what some might think, there isn’t some monolithic, authoritarian feminist doctrine that everyone must follow. There isn’t one feminism, there are multiple feminisms, and Cuntry Living reflects this.

But at the same time, there are some things which aren’t up for debate. (Yes, I’ve heard that Voltaire quote before.) For example, there’s a particularly nasty strain of radical feminism which says that trans women are not really women: this is a view which would never be admitted on a Cuntry Living thread, and rightly so, because Cuntry Living holds itself to far higher standards of inclusivity than other places.

Those expecting Cuntry Living to be a 101 go-to educational forum 24/7 are likely to be disappointed. It’s okay to ask questions, of course, but only if those questions are asked in a respectful way. Many members of the group are tired of justifying why they deserve to be treated with basic human rights, and they don’t owe anything to privileged people who are too lazy to do some basic research on Google. Those who come to Cuntry Living with the aim of playing ‘devil’s advocate’ or proposing ‘thought experiments’ have fundamentally misunderstood the function of the group: sorry, white boy, but this space is about more than your intellectual gymnastics. Ultimately, this group is not and should not be run for those with privilege. And this is something that (shock!) privileged people have a hard time accepting.

Cuntry Living isn’t perfect. And this is part of the problem: many treat it as though it should be perfect, as though it should be a High Church of Feminism, all things for all people. And yet, despite the sensationalised banning scandals, despite the admins’ Reign of Terror, still the group continues to serve its purpose in the Oxford community and beyond. It’s not the group I joined, certainly, and there are a lot more dickheads and derailers on threads but, ultimately, I can still find solace and solidarity in an (imperfect) space in which we can challenge patriarchy and share our experiences of oppression.

If you were old enough or keen enough (I was the latter) to stay up through the night to watch the last election in 2010, then Vernon Bogdanor should be a familiar face, if not a familiar name. In his role as one of Britain’s foremost constitutional experts, he appeared throughout the night as one of the BBC’s academic pundits. His suitability for this prominent role was certainly not hindered by the fact he was David Cameron’s former tutor.

Whilst the result of yesterday’s election is now known, it wasn’t at the time of print, and when I ask Bogdanor who he thought would win, he keeps mum, telling me, “Anyone who says they know the answer is either a fool or a social scientist.” Well, I suppose we now know whether any of the fools or social scientists were right.

Moving onto less speculative matters, I ask Bogdanor how he thinks 2010 impacted the political system. For Bogdanor, the key thing is “the growth of the multi-party system”. He also points out the growing geographical fragmentation of politics, “We have got different party battles in different parts of the country. In Scotland, it is obviously a battle between Labour and the SNP, in the West Country of England between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, in London much more between Labour and the Conservatives, in some of these East Coast towns, between Conservatives and UKIP. It is a question of whether it is a general election or a regional election or even a series of local by-elections. Even the idea of a national swing has gone.”

On whether the multi-party system is here to last, Bogdanor is clear, “I think the rise of a multi-party system is permanent and it fits in with trends in society because we no longer have a tribal system based on social classes. In the 1950s, people used to say, ‘We’ve always voted Labour,’ or, ‘My family has always been Conservative.’ We now live in a more consumerist society where people shop around. A third reason is that we have got PR for a lot of elections: for the Scottish Parliament, for the London Assembly, for the European Parliament and I think that might have accustomed people to vote for the smaller parties.“Ideally, I would like to see a single party majority government if more than 50 per cent of the people vote for it. I don’t want the kind of majority government like we had in 2005, when two-thirds of the country were against it. It is not in accordance with democracy.”

One of the key themes of this election has been the rise of the SNP, despite their defeat in last year’s referendum. Bodganor is optimistic about any role the SNP might play in the upcoming parliament, telling me, “SNP MPs are members of parliament on the same basis as any others. They have said they are going to play a constructive role and not just fight for independence. In my opinion, they should be taken at their word.

“The problem for Ed Miliband is that they will form an anti-austerity bloc including the Greens and some members of his own party. But he is committed to balancing the current budget by 2018 which mean cuts in public spending. There will be an anti-austerity bloc that will make it difficult for Miliband to govern.”

The Conservatives have often argued that a corollary of further devolution to Scotland is English votes for English laws, an argument with which Bogdanor disagrees adamantly. “I am against English votes for English laws. I think it is not right because England is by far the dominant partner of the Union with 85 per cent of the population, and we cannot have a symmetrical system. With such an unbalanced system, it is not possible. You cannot have two different governments, one for foreign policy and defence, one for health and housing. Anyway, what is an English issue? Anything which involves public expenditure is not strictly an English issue because it has a knock-on effect on Scotland through the Barnett formula. England has to accept a system of asymmetrical devolution and practice self-restraint to keep the union. We were not willing to pay that price for Ireland and we lost Ireland, and I don’t want the same to happen to Scotland; I am a unionist.”

The Scottish issue brings up the whole question of whether referenda are a good thing generally. Bogdanor’s response, “Yes, I think that in a democracy, people are entitled to have a say on issues. You can’t tell from the fact that somebody votes Conservative whether they favour staying in the EU or not. On the large issues, I think you can only get legitimacy through a referendum.”

Of course, there are many issues on which the opinions of the liberal elite and the population as a whole diverge, such as the death penalty. I ask Bogdanor whether the death penalty was an appropriate topic for a referendum, “If the demand were strong enough and a party favoured that, yes. I am against the death penalty and I take a perhaps old-fashioned, rationalist view that if the arguments against the death penalty are strong enough, they will win the day. I wouldn’t have a referendum on something that affects individual rights, like gay rights or things of that sort. I think they should be protected by the courts and shouldn’t be subjected to a majority democratic decision, but I am in favour of the wider use of referenda.”

As the conversation ended, I was left with an impression of a man full of optimism in Britain’s political system. Whilst the extent of his enthusiasm might be unwarranted, it is reassuring in light of the uncertainty around this election that Bogdanor sees the British system as fundamentally stable.

As Bogdanor says, “We are a highly stable country, much more so than most countries on the continent except for the Scandinavian countries. We have no really nasty right wing party like the Front National, no left wing nationalist party like Syriza. All our parties are moderate and committed to the constitutional system. There will be a way to make things work.”

There is much to say of the General Election just passed. In some senses, the British public are probably somewhat relieved that it is all over: media coverage of the election campaign has been relentless over the past five weeks. Perhaps now we can return to normality. The reality is, however, that British politics will never return to its run-of-the-mill form. The political landscape has been fundamentally altered and this General Election has ushered in a new type of politics.

Gone is the traditional left-right dichotomy. Voters, increasingly divorced from clearly defined partisan links, are no longer voting according to the issue dimensions that run parallel to the Left-Right divide. Half a century ago, one in four voters said they identified very strongly with one of the main parties; now that statistic is just one in ten. Equality versus freedom, public versus private ownership, the working classes versus the economic elite: these divisions retain some relevance but their impact has been significantly diminished by the appearance of new, cross-cutting dimensions. Polarised views on immigration, the environment and Britain’s membership of the European Union are just some examples of the new dimensions that have emerged.

Replacing the traditional Left-Right political jargon is the notion of an ‘insider-outsider’ distinction. Capitalising on voters who feel alienated by the policies of Britain’s ‘insider’ parties, the more populist ‘outsider’ parties – the SNP, the Greens and UKIP in particular – are gaining traction. The increase in support for parties other than Labour and the Conservatives is not necessarily a new phenomenon, but it does reflect the fact that the political landscape is changing in a more permanent way than ever before.

Coalitions and minority government are likely to continue to be a regular feature in the future. And this is despite a first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system that provides a significant advantage to the UK’s two largest parties. Fortunately, however, there does at last appear to be some recognition that more consensual, more pluralistic government may be the way forward. The old adage that majority governments generate strong and decisive policy-making continues to retain currency but there is a trade-off in terms of the extent to which the government represents the interests of the people as a whole. Conciliation and compromise are increasingly required to ensure that the interests of a large minority are not neglected.

What then of the future of British politics? This election has paid witness to a very considerable change in the shape of the political landscape but this change is more permanent than many commentators suggest. The elephant in the room is electoral system change. Given that the FPTP system benefits the two largest parties, neither Labour nor the Conservatives appear to have an incentive to support change and the comprehensive rejection of the Alternative Vote (AV) system in 2011 lends weight to the conclusion that electoral reform would simply not be possible.

UKIP are splitting the Conservative vote yet not translating their vote into a largely supportive bloc of right-wing legislative seats. Electoral reform in the shape of Proportional Representation (PR) may not be as far away as some think. Even if the Conservatives do not change their stance, an increasingly disproportionate electoral system is likely to force the issue.

Aside from electoral reform, there is likely to be one additional significant political change within the next generation. Scotland, in despite of last year’s referendum, appears to be moving inexorably towards the exit door. When historians reflect on the 2015 General Election, their focus is likely to be on the extraordinary rise of the Scottish National Party, a rise that does not appear to be on the wane any time soon.

The hegemony of Labour and the Conservatives is not necessarily over but it will certainly be difficult to recover. Voter concerns can no longer be grouped along a simple left-right continuum and the weakening of partisan ties has meant that the outsider parties are coming to the fore. Scottish and English nationalism are both serious concerns but there is some hope that this election will mark the beginning of the process towards electoral reform. A new politics has emerged from this election and it is one that requires conciliation and compromise rather than the conflicted politics of old.